The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) uncommon term in academic literature, 2) resembles existing article Objective reality, 3) from the talk page, it is clear that this article is not being taken seriously by anyone -Shaggorama 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. DELETE. per nom -Shaggorama 08:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Delete per nom. Not much to say on this one. Maybe some of the contents can be moved to the articles on altered states of consciousness, Timothy Leary or drug culture? --Francesco Franco 08:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Delete per nom. It seems an awkward attempt to define Objective reality through Indian mysticism; though apparently informed by drug experiences. No useful content can be appended to redeem it. Readers interested in the subject can read the articles suggested by Fransesco. Rintrah 10:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Delete a muddle of philosophical ideas with no real theme to tie them together into a coherent article. Nor is it possible that future edits could produce any coherence. An embarrassment. Banno 11:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Delete Article is disjointed; its descriptions are tepid and uniformative. I do not think there is anything this article can do for the wiki that others don't already do. - Sam 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Delete and redirect to Objective reality. Alba 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Comment. Anyone here actually know enough about Eastern philosophy to be sure that "ultimate reality" isn't an English phrase for some notable Eastern philosophical concept? There's the 25-year-old Ultimate Reality & Meaning journal, an Ultimate Reality bibliography... I'm not seeing any concise definitions, but that's hardly an uncommon issue in philosophy. (Concerned here that no distinction is being made between the quality of this article and the right of a better version of it to exist.) (late sign:) –Outriggr § 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
   1. I am not an expert, but I have studied enough Eastern philosophy and religion to know that when the phrase "ultimate reality" is used in these contexts, it can mean only one of a few things which are best covered in other articles on Wikipedia. 1) Ultimate reality can mean the real world which lies transcend and lies beyond the apparent world of the sense. This is covered in hundreds of different articles. 2) UR can be a shorthand for the "meaning of life", as in the first link which you cite. This should be covered in meaning of life. Ultimate reality often means some undisclosed higher plane of existence/heightened state of consciousness achieved through transcendental meditation, the use of drugs. This should obviously be covered in things like satori, enlightenment, consciousness, spirituality, transcendental meditation, etc.. etc. Somehow I do NOT think that Wikipedia is LACKING in such material. Au contraire. --Francesco Franco 08:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. (Ideally, of course, these would all be merged into Transcendental Unmitigated Ultimate Reality III: The Wrath of Khansciousness.) Thanks for responding FF. –Outriggr § 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delete -- I'm usually a tie-dyed inclusionist, but this is utterly pointless. I have nothing new to add on the reasons, but add my vote. --Christofurio 14:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.